Dismissal of election petition during trial

2015 PLD 272 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 55 & 63Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionDismissal of election petition during trialScope and principlesPartial/complete-failure to comply with provisions of S.55 of Representation of the People Act, 1976Effect

Section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 did not contain any direction that (election) petition shall be dismissed, even if there was a partial failure to comply with the provisions of S.55 of the said Act

Section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 was seemingly designed to cover a case where the (election) petition as a whole made allegations of vague and indefinite character without being supported by full particulars of the corrupt or illegal practices

If the election petition taken as a whole failed to comply with the provisions of S.55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, it shall be dismissed as revealing no cause of action for the reason that policy of said Act was to discourage an election petition, even during trial, if genuine grounds for challenging an election did not exist.

2014 CLC 293 ELECTION-TRIBUNAL-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 55(1)(b)& 63Dismissal of election petition during trialParticulars of alleged corrupt and illegal practices not mentioned in the election petitionEffect

Petitioners had made serious allegations of all sorts against the returned candidates and the Election Commission right from the announcement of the election till the consolidation of results, but no details were provided regarding polling stations where such illegal acts or illegal practices were committed and as to who were the witnesses of such acts or practices

Petitioners also did not mention specifically that alleged illegal acts were committed at all polling stations of all the constituencies

On one hand petitioners alleged that election material was dispatched at polling stations 1-1/2 to 5 hours late but location and description of such polling stations was not mentioned and also as to how petitioners came to know about it when they had already boycotted the election and left the polling stations

No affidavit in evidence of any polling agent of present petitioners was attached with their election petitions in support of their allegations

Petitioners alleged that Returning Officers handed over election material to un-authorized persons who misused the same in favour of returned candidates by stamping ballot-papers and filled ballot boxes at unauthorized polling stations but again petitioners did not mention in their petitions the location of such unauthorized polling stations; the details of those un-authorized persons to whom election material was handed over, and as to how petitioners came to know about it and what action was taken by them to stop such illegal acts

Petitioners were also required to file affidavits of evidence of their witnesses in support of their allegations as required under a notification issued by the Election Commission under S.62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 but no such affidavit had been filed

Petitioners further alleged that Returning Officer and District Returning Officers continuously changed polling stations till the night of the polling date but not a single polling station was mentioned in the election petitions which was changed in such a manner and in violation of Representation of the People Act, 1976 or the relevant rules

Petitioners also alleged that miscreants /activists of returned candidates kidnapped polling personnel at various polling stations and made them hostage and then snatched ballot-papers, ballot boxes, but petitioners again failed to give details of any polling personnel or polling stations where such incidents had taken place

Prima facie, such details should have been in the knowledge of the petitioners in ordinary course, therefore, they were legally bound to provide the same in compliance with S.55(1) (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976

Petitioners on one hand made a bald allegation that Returning Officers had already filled the Consolidated Statements of Count (Form-XVI) in respect of their respective constituencies even before the results and merely signed the same, but on the other hand alleged that they signed them after a delay of many days without adopting the procedure laid down in S.39 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976

Logically it was unacceptable that when Returning Officers had already filed such statements as to why they would delay signing them, and question was as to how petitioners came to know about it when they had boycotted the election

Contents of present petitions clearly showed that the allegations contained therein lacked elementary details of corrupt and illegal practices/acts which were required to be provided under the provisions of S.55(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976

Until and unless such details were provided, present petitions were liable to be dismissed under S.63 of the Representation of the People Act,1976

Election petitions were dismissed with costs accordingly.